“There’s a Mercedes divide”: former FCC chief now top cable lobbyist

The FCC Chair who once poo-poohed the "digital divide" is now head of the …

The revolving door that is Washington, DC swiveled rather loudly yesterday with the announcement that former Federal Communications Commission Chair Michael K. Powell will soon head the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. Powell ran the FCC from 2001 through 2005.

"Michael's exemplary record of leadership, deep commitment to public service, and vast insight into public policy make him an ideal fit to lead our industry in Washington, DC," declared NCTA Board Chair Patrick J. Esser, "as we address the regulatory challenges that lie ahead and continue to help policy makers understand cable's commitment to jobs, investment, and innovation."

"Former Chairman Michael Powell is the natural choice to lead the nation's most powerful cable lobby," Free Press managing director Craig Aaron declared, "having looked out for the interests of companies like Comcast and Time Warner during his tenure at the Commission and having already served as a figurehead for the industry front group Broadband for America."

I'd like to have one

Powell's tenure at the FCC is remembered for two things.

First—his unsuccessful attempt to gut many of the agency's restrictions on the ownership of combinations of television and radio stations, along with newspapers. Most of the deregulatory changes that Powell's majority enacted were thrown out by an appeals court in 2003.

Second—a rather curious commentary that he offered in 2001, which for many came to symbolize the perspective of the Bush era. At a "meet and greet" event held in February of that year, a reporter from the Chicago Tribune asked Powell for his perspective on dealing with the "so-called digital divide."

It was the last question asked at the event. "You know, I think there's a Mercedes divide," Powell replied. "I'd like to have one. I can't afford one."

Since FCC chiefs are often remembered for their one liners (former agency boss Newton Minow's "vast wasteland" speech being the most prominent example), this comment created quite a stir.

"Thanks in no small part to the policies he pursued at the FCC and to the cable lobby's unyielding fight against any real competition in the broadband market, the digital divide is still with us," Aaron added today. "But today we can finally say, at least in Michael Powell's case, that the Mercedes divide is closing."

But, curious about the full context of Powell's famous comment, we looked it up at the C-SPAN video archive, and transcribe it in full here. Context, as it often does, changes his remarks a bit.

The term is dangerous

"The digital divide means lots of things to lots of different people," Powell replied to his questioner, "much of which is not in our purview. Deployment of computers, for example, to personal homes. Whether the computer market is providing at reasonable cost accessibility to those services. There's almost nothing I have to do with that question."

He continued:

We are committing to providing, in whatever responsible and reasonable way regulation can, the full deployment of the infrastructures that will make this dream realizable and we do that in the name of all Americans. And I think we do it in a way that we think that will facilitate or at least eliminate barriers, to do it in every segment of the population and its geography.

But that said, I also think that the term sometimes is dangerous in the sense that if it suggests that the minute a new and innovative technology is on the market there's a "divide" unless it's equitably distributed among every part of the society and every component, [that] is just an unrealistic understanding of an American capitalist system. That's not true of any good or service in the economy. And particularly in the early stages of innovation—you want to know what?—it is going to be the wealthier people who have more disposable income who buy four thousand dollar digital TVs first. Does that mean that there's an "HDTV divide" on the first day that they're out there? No.

You know, I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one. I can't afford one.

I'm not meaning to be completely flip about it, because I think it's an important social issue. But it shouldn't be used to justify the notion of essentially the socialization of the deployment of the infrastructure, because what I get afraid of is that there is a real risk... if the standard is you can't have it, you can't produce it unless you produce it for all, always, I'm very worried it doesn't get produced.

There is an alternative that we tend to forget about that producers have, which is: 'Don't make it. Don't deploy it.' And I assure you that happens. If you look at technologies, the best technologies rarely actually win. They don't win because they don't end up being able to be translated to mass markets... All these guys want to do is make money. And they will go to whatever product in whatever form they can to make money. And when there are consumers out there to sell to, they will want a way to sell to them.

"Now if we can do things that make the cost burdens and the deployment burdens less so they will also want to sell to people with less income or more in disadvantaged areas, we'll do everything we can to do that," Powell concluded.

"But I don't embrace the idea that digital divide is the same thing as, for example, a universal service concept. Because I think that this technology is going to be one of the most wonderful things that this society has produced to help poor and those less advantaged because I think it has a built-in low cost structure."

Low cost structure?

There's a lot more to challenge in this commentary than just Powell's "Mercedes divide" quip. For instance, broadband automatically has a "built-in low cost structure"?

And whether Powell thought that broadband was a universal service concept back then, he's going to have to get used to the idea now, given that the FCC plans to gradually require recipients of Universal Service Fund money to become ISPs.

But in Powell's defense, his full commentary reveals that this wasn't just some mean-spirited, off-the-cuff dismissal. He clearly saw the FCC as having some role in dealing with the digital divide problem. And the response was part of a larger, highly developed philosophy about government and the market... one that he will doubtless apply to his new job at the NCTA.

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

47 Reader Comments

"Michael's exemplary record of leadership, deep commitment to public service, and vast insight into public policy make him an ideal fit to lead our industry in Washington, DC," declared NCTA Board Chair Patrick J. Esser, "

So, he's basically committed to screwing the people in favor of big industry - gotcha. He'll fit right in with the scum.... er lobbyists.

It is unsurprising -- people who used to be government employees routinely end up working on the private side of things in Washington. I'm not sure how disappointing it is though, since Powell does admit that the FCC should aid in bridging the digital divide. Sure, Powell is very pro-business but the NCTA could have hired someone far worse as their head.

So it's "infastructure" then? Of course it's deployment should be "socialized". If nothing else, that sort of thing is what government is for. Even Republicans buy into this idea that building out infastructure is "good for business" and therefore should be persued by the government.

Attempting to call basic infastructure for emerging technology "a Mercedes" is just plain crass. It's not a Mercedes, it's just a good road. He's trying to confuse basic infastructure with an overpriced means to exploit that public infastructgure.Also, the example of HDTV is quite ironic given how this was itself driven by government mandate that made eveyone's old gear worthless. Again, he's trying to conflate infastructure and the means you might take advantage of it. You don't need a "luxury vehicle" to use roads. Although there is a "automobile gap" that Crassius has missed here.

Being a somewhat out of touch "fat cat", he may not realize this of course.

The whole "mercedes gap" nonsense is just a hoot. He comes off like Marie Antoinette.

I'm tired of industry people coming to run the regulatory bodies (ahem, wall street)... also, very very tired of regulatory people going to work for industry after their tenure is over (this situation). Talk about the wolf guarding the henhouse. Also... lobbyists should be illegal. Money isn't speech.

We think we live in free and democratic societies because we get to vote representatives every 4 years. Meanwhile Corporations control all levels of government every single second. History tells us this will not end well.

"built-in low cost structure" --- when was this, 2001? He was almost surely thinking in terms landlines and cable lines already being present, along with the already-established DSL and cable Internet services.

Back then the socioeconomic expectations were email, IM and looking up facts for Junior's homework assignment. Music and video, then as now, was seen as an online luxury, not something anyone needed for "communication."

Even more so today, now that cable doesn't have to be considered "dumb pipes"---that's the move I remember Powell being instrumental in.

Regardless of Powell's obvious shortsightedness, he's still not doing the public any favors by representing NCTA.

So it's "infastructure" then? Of course it's deployment should be "socialized". If nothing else, that sort of thing is what government is for. Even Republicans buy into this idea that building out infastructure is "good for business" and therefore should be persued by the government.

Attempting to call basic infastructure for emerging technology "a Mercedes" is just plain crass. It's not a Mercedes, it's just a good road. He's trying to confuse basic infastructure with an overpriced means to exploit that public infastructgure.Also, the example of HDTV is quite ironic given how this was itself driven by government mandate that made eveyone's old gear worthless. Again, he's trying to conflate infastructure and the means you might take advantage of it. You don't need a "luxury vehicle" to use roads. Although there is a "automobile gap" that Crassius has missed here.

Being a somewhat out of touch "fat cat", he may not realize this of course.

The whole "mercedes gap" nonsense is just a hoot. He comes off like Marie Antoinette.

This.

And Powell's 2001 comment about corporations wanting to sell things we want to buy ("so let them") is obviously only limited to a very few companies that "need protection" in order to do so.

The only thing I can see that gives him any credibility is what his FCC did for HDTV here. Recent FCC comments surely haven't help protect the citizens' spectrum.

So it's "infastructure" then? Of course it's deployment should be "socialized". If nothing else, that sort of thing is what government is for. Even Republicans buy into this idea that building out infastructure is "good for business" and therefore should be persued by the government.

Attempting to call basic infastructure for emerging technology "a Mercedes" is just plain crass. It's not a Mercedes, it's just a good road. He's trying to confuse basic infastructure with an overpriced means to exploit that public infastructgure.Also, the example of HDTV is quite ironic given how this was itself driven by government mandate that made eveyone's old gear worthless. Again, he's trying to conflate infastructure and the means you might take advantage of it. You don't need a "luxury vehicle" to use roads. Although there is a "automobile gap" that Crassius has missed here.

Being a somewhat out of touch "fat cat", he may not realize this of course.

The whole "mercedes gap" nonsense is just a hoot. He comes off like Marie Antoinette.

First, I do not like this man. He leaned very much towards the interests of telcos and cable companies, who I also hate, but I do agree with one point he makes concerning an equality involving infrastructure.

We don't have equality on any of our infrastructure. Many rural areas don't have "city water" (some do not even have usable well water) and even more don't have sewage systems. In my area, there were people still using outhouses and draining sinks and washers directly to the surface as recently as the early nineties. The only areas where we almost reach parity are in electricity and basic phone thanks to the REA, but even there metro and affluent areas continued to progress to newer technologies while some rural areas did not. The rural area I am from did not even receive Caller ID until 2003 and that was due to government grant to upgrade the local switch from the analog unit installed in the mid seventies to a digital system. Electricity in rural areas can be quite...frail, compared to metro and suburban counterparts, but I would call it the closest to equal.

The point is what is defined as basic infrastructure? Look at my example for phones. Caller ID has been around since the 70's but was not available in my area until almost 30 years later, but is it a basic feature? I would think not. The same holds true for broadband. Providing basic connectivity (>dialup) and affordable and reasonable rates yes, but beyond that falls to the purview of the individual, not the government.

We think we live in free and democratic societies because we get to vote representatives every 4 years. Meanwhile Corporations control all levels of government every single second. History tells us this will not end well.

I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your comment, but in my corner of the USA, we vote for representatives every 2 years, senators every 6 years, and presidents every 4 years.

He couldn't resist trotting out that old chestnut of American demagoguery – socialism.

Keep this up, and we'll end up with all roads becoming toll roads. No public schools, no parks, no beaches, no hiking trails. Extortion-level prices on water, food, bread...guns and butter. Because any attempt to make life affordable, and evening the playing field for all citizens will be placed under the umbrella of socialism.

Preventing monopolies? Socialism.

Give a child a hammer, and everything he encounters requires hammering.

...Providing basic connectivity (>dialup) and affordable and reasonable rates yes, but beyond that falls to the purview of the individual, not the government.

You could easily take your argument all the way to say that poorer quality telephone calls are all that are needed, and that NTSC television is all that's needed.

Would you want to, and if so, why? Because you don't think you should have better, and so therefore no one else should, either? Just curious.

There's a large dollop of quality-of-life issues here at stake. And as the years go on, our expectations increase as the technology does. That's where FCC's representation of the citizen's interests should be: to help raise the bar for us, when we can't do it ourselves or more to the point, help us to know there's a better alternative.

So, this isn't about "pushing through something at any cost that we don't need."

Regarding individual choice and responsibility to getting better service, keep in mind that none of us can when our interests aren't looked out for. Constructing an environment where duopolies reign (the typical scenario) isn't real choice, and you know that as soon as you shop another service and find it either offers the same flavor of crap or doesn't actually exist.

He couldn't resist trotting out that old chestnut of American demagoguery – socialism.Keep this up, and we'll end up with all roads becoming toll roads. No public schools, no parks, no beaches, no hiking trails. Extortion-level prices on water, food, bread...guns and butter. Because any attempt to make life affordable, and evening the playing field for all citizens will be placed under the umbrella of socialism. Preventing monopolies? Socialism. Give a child a hammer, and everything he encounters requires hammering.

The other extreme is that under socialism our masses are undereducated, roads are crappy, parks are crappy, beaches are crappy, and hiking trails are crappy. No bread nor butter, and unclean water. Plenty of guns though... for the police and military.

Give a child a hammer and a great education and everything he encounters will get a fair evaluation on whether its needs hammering. Most stuff does though.

The other extreme is that under socialism our masses are undereducated, roads are crappy, parks are crappy, beaches are crappy, and hiking trails are crappy. No bread nor butter, and unclean water. Plenty of guns though... for the police and military.

Give a child a hammer and a great education and everything he encounters will get a fair evaluation on whether its needs hammering. Most stuff does though.

I'm not following your response at all. Could you elaborate? Why would "socialism" result in all those bad outcomes?

The other extreme is that under socialism our masses are undereducated, roads are crappy, parks are crappy, beaches are crappy, and hiking trails are crappy. No bread nor butter, and unclean water. Plenty of guns though... for the police and military.

Socialism is not the same as a dictatorship. It does not require armed police or soldiers on the streets.

As for education. Cuba is the most socialist country I know of, and it is known to many as the country that exports its doctors. Well educated people who can get jobs in hospitals around the world so they can send their money home (because US sanctions mean that the people, and country as a whole, are super poor)

If Cuba is a little exotic, Germany is probably your next most well known socialist country. They have great roads, great healthcare, good education, public parks, toilets, beaches, etc. They have almost no military. They also happen to have one of the best industial sectors in the world. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with "Socialism" and it isn't inherently bad for business.

The other extreme is that under socialism our masses are undereducated, roads are crappy, parks are crappy, beaches are crappy, and hiking trails are crappy. No bread nor butter, and unclean water. Plenty of guns though... for the police and military.Give a child a hammer and a great education and everything he encounters will get a fair evaluation on whether its needs hammering. Most stuff does though.

I'm not following your response at all. Could you elaborate? Why would "socialism" result in all those bad outcomes?

History. Socialism does not incentivize quality of life. Under the auspices of 'protection', the government does all these things for the PEOPLE- Build parks, roads, hiking trails, etc. In return, the PEOPLE have less freedom to make market and personal choices. Eastern Europe is a prime example. Under Socialism, the governments of various Nations built all those things mentioned but let people stand in line for bread, butter, and other food stuffs.

The other extreme is that under socialism our masses are undereducated, roads are crappy, parks are crappy, beaches are crappy, and hiking trails are crappy. No bread nor butter, and unclean water. Plenty of guns though... for the police and military.

Socialism is not the same as a dictatorship. It does not require armed police or soldiers on the streets.As for education. Cuba is the most socialist country I know of, and it is known to many as the country that exports its doctors. Well educated people who can get jobs in hospitals around the world so they can send their money home (because US sanctions mean that the people, and country as a whole, are super poor)If Cuba is a little exotic, Germany is probably your next most well known socialist country. They have great roads, great healthcare, good education, public parks, toilets, beaches, etc. They have almost no military. They also happen to have one of the best industial sectors in the world. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with "Socialism" and it isn't inherently bad for business.

You're right about Socialism not being a dictatorship. Is that the evaluation standard? We're not a dictatorship. History has shown that many Socialist countries were dictatorships though. Not many Democracies were dictatorships. Although armed soldiers or police are not on the streets, do you think they are not a threat to Liberty? They are just waiting to arrest you if you speak your mind. Say something in public about a 'protected group' and see what happens. I dare you.

Cuba? Really dude? Cuba's problem are because of a US embargo? Europe doesn't embargo Cuba. Really dude? I wont even acknowledge that one with a comment.

Germany, I would not call them the most socialist, but I get ya. They have a military. The US Military. That's the problem. Socialist Nations can spend nearly all their budgets on domestic programs (that don't work very well) instead of a sufficient military to protect them. Then the Countries get into a squabble and war starts. History is all the proof you need.Germany does have a great setup. They also have a law that Nazi flags are illegal. In other words, freedom does not reign in Germany. Business prefers freedom. Its cheaper to do business in Countries that are more free. Less bribes.

If the US Government and FCC were not so powerful then why would this NCTA lobby even want him? It is socialism at its finest. A powerful government wants to 'regulate' communications. They tell the select few companies, that they helped subsidize, what the rules are. The rule makers are bureaucrats and don't necessarily produce any results because they get paid no matter what. They make back room deals and secure their post government 'job experience' with a cushy lobbyist position after screwing the taxpayer.

Crusty, it is my belief that you are conflating a great many things together that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other or with socialism in particular, but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.

The other extreme is that under socialism our masses are undereducated, roads are crappy, parks are crappy, beaches are crappy, and hiking trails are crappy. No bread nor butter, and unclean water. Plenty of guns though... for the police and military.

As for education. Cuba is the most socialist country I know of, and it is known to many as the country that exports its doctors. Well educated people who can get jobs in hospitals around the world so they can send their money home (because US sanctions mean that the people, and country as a whole, are super poor)

The US embargo is the only reason? No one else embargos Cuba. Cuba is free to do business with the rest of the world. Cuba is poor because of socialism.

reverse_atomic_roger wrote:

Germany is probably your next most well known socialist country.

Germany is not socialist.

reverse_atomic_roger wrote:

They have great roads, great healthcare, good education, public parks, toilets, beaches, etc.

German healthcare is not socialized. There is no single-payer healthcare in Germany and many people have only private health insurance.

German public toilets are generally clean and well maintained because you pay to use them. That doesn't sounds like socialism to me.

German beaches? Really? Why do all the Germans go to Mallorca and Ibiza then?

reverse_atomic_roger wrote:

They have almost no military.

I'm sure the Bundeswehr soldiers getting killed in Afghanistan will be happy to learn that.

reverse_atomic_roger wrote:

They also happen to have one of the best industial sectors in the world.

Not surprising. I remember another issue from his tenure was that he refused to remove himself from issues that may affect AOL Time Warner, when his Father, Colin, was a member of board of director, so there was a lot perception for conflict of interests. Looks like Michael K. Powell also became an AOL director himself after his tenure at FCC.

Another reaction to his Mercedes divide comment was that, as FCC Chairman, his annual salary was $130-140K. So it's disingenuous for him to say he can not afford a Mercedes. Maybe not top-end AMG model, or higher end of S class, but he had to seriously mismanaging his finance to claim he can not afford a C-class or even E-Class. I had personally know one of his law school classmate from Georgetown Law Center, and that gentleman was earning over $1 million/annually as partner at large law firm. And a 1st year associate at O’Melveny & Myers, Michael's old law firm, can earn more than FCC Chairman, or a Federal judge for that matter. So one can see where he may feel "poor" by comparison. But it's still very tasteless for him to say he couldn't afford a Mercedes.

Short of adopting Singapore style/level of compensation, which is unlikely due to political and culture reasons, I don't see good solutions.

"In April 2007, the Prime Minister's annual salary increased to S$3.1 million (US$2.05 million), about five times that of the then President of the United States George W. Bush who earned US$400,000.[63] The annual entry-level salary for ministers increased from $1.2 million to $1.6 million"

Singapore has a reputation for clean government, but it didn't come cheap.

That's because the Allies dissolved the German army after WW2, and their military security is provided by the NATO and the US.

??? Up until 1990 the West German Army had over 500,000 active duty personnel and was expected to be the main pillar of west European defense against a Soviet invasion. Even now the German Army has about 250,000 active duty soldiers.

"Michael's exemplary record of leadership, deep commitment to public service, and vast insight into public policy make him an ideal fit to lead our industry in Washington, DC," declared NCTA Board Chair Patrick J. Esser, "

So, he's basically committed to screwing the people in favor of big industry - gotcha. He'll fit right in with the scum.... er lobbyists.

Michael K. Powell will soon head the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. Powell ran the FCC from 2001 through 2005 and is in fact a scumbag and tool for big business screwiong us all over

We are committing to providing, in whatever responsible and reasonable way regulation can, the full deployment of the infrastructures that will make this dream realizable and we do that in the name of all Americans. And I think we do it in a way that we think that will facilitate or at least eliminate barriers, to do it in every segment of the population and its geography. *So long as its through handouts to local monopolies to secure future profits, and municipal projects are railroaded.

But that said, I also think that the term sometimes is dangerous in the sense that if it suggests that the minute a new and innovative technology is on the market there's a "divide" unless it's equitably distributed among every part of the society and every component, [that] is just an unrealistic understanding of an American capitalist system. No one is making this argument for understanding, you disingenuous ass. That's not true of any good or service in the economy. And particularly in the early stages of innovation—you want to know what?—it is going to be the wealthier people who have more disposable income who buy four thousand dollar digital TVs first. Does that mean that there's an "HDTV divide" on the first day that they're out there? No.If this is the best example you can give for your doublespeak argument, then it is obvious that you are full of shit.

You know, I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one. I can't afford one.Access to current technology and internet is not a Mercedes, you said it yourself. You said yourself that you were talking about "new and innovative technology". Take your doublespeak and shove it up your ass.

I'm not meaning to be completely flip about it, because I think it's an important social issue. But it shouldn't be used to justify the notion of essentially the socialization of the deployment of the infrastructure, because what I get afraid of is that there is a real risk... if the standard is you can't have it, you can't produce it unless you produce it for all, always, I'm very worried it doesn't get produced. Yea just like all those other national projects and regulations that gave us interstates, phone lines, and electricity everywhere. Look how non-produced they were. And, this argument is pretending that somehow all technologies will be forced to be deployed everywhere, and not just a certain minimum level of connection. Again, more disingenuous nonsense from the future lobbyist, apparently getting paid a government salary for his lobbying training.

There is an alternative that we tend to forget about that producers have, which is: 'Don't make it. Don't deploy it.' And I assure you that happens. If you look at technologies, the best technologies rarely actually win. They don't win because they don't end up being able to be translated to mass markets... All these guys want to do is make money. And they will go to whatever product in whatever form they can to make money. And when there are consumers out there to sell to, they will want a way to sell to them.This entire paragraph is more distractionary nonsense that has no relation whatsoever to the digital divide, only to the "divide" that he coined himself. The disingenuous, convoluted, doublespeak-laden, "Mercedes Divide" that represents not everyone having four thousand dollars TVs in their rooms.

"Now if we can do things that make the cost burdens and the deployment burdens less so they will also want to sell to people with less income or more in disadvantaged areas, we'll do everything we can to do that," Powell concluded.Except you can't because you don't want to unless if involves your future employers getting handouts. You explicitly banned municipal projects like municipal fiber in your hypothetical by saying "they will want to sell", with they being the current local monopolies/duopolies.

"But I don't embrace the idea that digital divide is the same thing as, for example, a universal service concept.Why? Because you said not too? Because you redefined it to suit your goals of later strutting through the rotating door? Because to embrace that idea means to justify municipal projects and government spending that doesn't involve handouts to corporations? Because embracing that idea means focusing on getting it to the people at the best cost and at the best circumstances for the people, them owning it themselves? No, I reject and refuse to embrace your contrived "Mercedes Divide" nonsense because it has no relation to the "digital divide". Because I think that this technology is going to be one of the most wonderful things that this society has produced to help poor and those less advantaged because I think it has a built-in low cost structure."Built-in low cost structure is municipal fiber. The very thing your "Mercedes Divide" distraction is trying to blatantly ignore. The very thing your current employer loathes. Fuck off, bitch.

"Michael's exemplary record of leadership, deep commitment to public service, and vast insight into public policy make him an ideal fit to lead our industry in Washington, DC," declared NCTA Board Chair Patrick J. Esser, "

So, he's basically committed to screwing the people in favor of big industry - gotcha. He'll fit right in with the scum.... er lobbyists.

Heh. At least now we know why he "believed" the incredibly stupid idea that promoting "competition" between means of accessing the internet (i.e. promoting monopolies within means of accessing the internet) would lead to a more competitive broadband market. He was setting himself up for a job with the monopolists. It was a classic case of bait and switch: say you are promoting something everyone thinks is in their interest, competition, while actually promoting something most people don't think is in their interest, monopolies, in order to suck up to the monopolists. Douche.

We are committing to providing, in whatever responsible and reasonable way regulation can, the full deployment of the infrastructures that will make this dream realizable and we do that in the name of all Americans. And I think we do it in a way that we think that will facilitate or at least eliminate barriers, to do it in every segment of the population and its geography. *So long as its through handouts to local monopolies to secure future profits, and municipal projects are railroaded.

But that said, I also think that the term sometimes is dangerous in the sense that if it suggests that the minute a new and innovative technology is on the market there's a "divide" unless it's equitably distributed among every part of the society and every component, [that] is just an unrealistic understanding of an American capitalist system. No one is making this argument for understanding, you disingenuous ass. That's not true of any good or service in the economy. And particularly in the early stages of innovation—you want to know what?—it is going to be the wealthier people who have more disposable income who buy four thousand dollar digital TVs first. Does that mean that there's an "HDTV divide" on the first day that they're out there? No.If this is the best example you can give for your doublespeak argument, then it is obvious that you are full of shit.

You know, I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one. I can't afford one.Access to current technology and internet is not a Mercedes, you said it yourself. You said yourself that you were talking about "new and innovative technology". Take your doublespeak and shove it up your ass.

I'm not meaning to be completely flip about it, because I think it's an important social issue. But it shouldn't be used to justify the notion of essentially the socialization of the deployment of the infrastructure, because what I get afraid of is that there is a real risk... if the standard is you can't have it, you can't produce it unless you produce it for all, always, I'm very worried it doesn't get produced. Yea just like all those other national projects and regulations that gave us interstates, phone lines, and electricity everywhere. Look how non-produced they were. And, this argument is pretending that somehow all technologies will be forced to be deployed everywhere, and not just a certain minimum level of connection. Again, more disingenuous nonsense from the future lobbyist, apparently getting paid a government salary for his lobbying training.

There is an alternative that we tend to forget about that producers have, which is: 'Don't make it. Don't deploy it.' And I assure you that happens. If you look at technologies, the best technologies rarely actually win. They don't win because they don't end up being able to be translated to mass markets... All these guys want to do is make money. And they will go to whatever product in whatever form they can to make money. And when there are consumers out there to sell to, they will want a way to sell to them.This entire paragraph is more distractionary nonsense that has no relation whatsoever to the digital divide, only to the "divide" that he coined himself. The disingenuous, convoluted, doublespeak-laden, "Mercedes Divide" that represents not everyone having four thousand dollars TVs in their rooms.

"Now if we can do things that make the cost burdens and the deployment burdens less so they will also want to sell to people with less income or more in disadvantaged areas, we'll do everything we can to do that," Powell concluded.Except you can't because you don't want to unless if involves your future employers getting handouts. You explicitly banned municipal projects like municipal fiber in your hypothetical by saying "they will want to sell", with they being the current local monopolies/duopolies.

"But I don't embrace the idea that digital divide is the same thing as, for example, a universal service concept.Why? Because you said not too? Because you redefined it to suit your goals of later strutting through the rotating door? Because to embrace that idea means to justify municipal projects and government spending that doesn't involve handouts to corporations? Because embracing that idea means focusing on getting it to the people at the best cost and at the best circumstances for the people, them owning it themselves? No, I reject and refuse to embrace your contrived "Mercedes Divide" nonsense because it has no relation to the "digital divide". Because I think that this technology is going to be one of the most wonderful things that this society has produced to help poor and those less advantaged because I think it has a built-in low cost structure."Built-in low cost structure is municipal fiber. The very thing your "Mercedes Divide" distraction is trying to blatantly ignore. The very thing your current employer loathes. Fuck off, bitch.

So it's "infastructure" then? Of course it's deployment should be "socialized". If nothing else, that sort of thing is what government is for. Even Republicans buy into this idea that building out infastructure is "good for business" and therefore should be persued by the government.

Attempting to call basic infastructure for emerging technology "a Mercedes" is just plain crass. It's not a Mercedes, it's just a good road. He's trying to confuse basic infastructure with an overpriced means to exploit that public infastructgure.Also, the example of HDTV is quite ironic given how this was itself driven by government mandate that made eveyone's old gear worthless. Again, he's trying to conflate infastructure and the means you might take advantage of it. You don't need a "luxury vehicle" to use roads. Although there is a "automobile gap" that Crassius has missed here.

Being a somewhat out of touch "fat cat", he may not realize this of course.

The whole "mercedes gap" nonsense is just a hoot. He comes off like Marie Antoinette.

First, I do not like this man. He leaned very much towards the interests of telcos and cable companies, who I also hate, but I do agree with one point he makes concerning an equality involving infrastructure.

We don't have equality on any of our infrastructure. Many rural areas don't have "city water" (some do not even have usable well water) and even more don't have sewage systems. In my area, there were people still using outhouses and draining sinks and washers directly to the surface as recently as the early nineties. The only areas where we almost reach parity are in electricity and basic phone thanks to the REA, but even there metro and affluent areas continued to progress to newer technologies while some rural areas did not. The rural area I am from did not even receive Caller ID until 2003 and that was due to government grant to upgrade the local switch from the analog unit installed in the mid seventies to a digital system. Electricity in rural areas can be quite...frail, compared to metro and suburban counterparts, but I would call it the closest to equal.

The point is what is defined as basic infrastructure? Look at my example for phones. Caller ID has been around since the 70's but was not available in my area until almost 30 years later, but is it a basic feature? I would think not. The same holds true for broadband. Providing basic connectivity (>dialup) and affordable and reasonable rates yes, but beyond that falls to the purview of the individual, not the government.

So, because you didn't have the very best, you want other people to have none at all? Every advancement in your area was attributed to government spending. Are you saying you would have rather just had manual wells and smoke signals over what you did have?

They have great roads, great healthcare, good education, public parks, toilets, beaches, etc.

German healthcare is not socialized. There is no single-payer healthcare in Germany and many people have only private health insurance.

From the standard perspective of the political right in America, Germany is a very socialist country. Did you know that there are restrictions on private companies firing workers in Germany? That's socialism for you.

Germany has mandated universal health care, with a large percentage of the cost paid for by taxpayers, not the individual. Again, socialist. Apparently it's the oldest universal health care system in Europe, dating back to 1883. So you're a little behind the times.

I'm not arguing that's good or bad, I'm just saying that by the standards of the Michael K. Powells of the world, Germany is a socialist country with a socialist economy. They also have many nice beaches, that are extremely cold in the winter.

They have great roads, great healthcare, good education, public parks, toilets, beaches, etc.

German healthcare is not socialized. There is no single-payer healthcare in Germany and many people have only private health insurance.

From the standard perspective of the political right in America, Germany is a very socialist country. Did you know that there are restrictions on private companies firing workers in Germany? That's socialism for you.

There are restrictions, but in practice any (non-union) worker in private employment can be fired pretty much at will.

Grocer wrote:

Germany has mandated universal health care, with a large percentage of the cost paid for by taxpayers, not the individual. Again, socialist. Apparently it's the oldest universal health care system in Europe, dating back to 1883. So you're a little behind the times.

No, you just don't know what you are talking about. Germany has near universal health insurance coverage but it isn't single payer and it is only partially government funded. Most people are in semi-private health insurance co-ops funded by payroll deductions, some people are in publicly funded health insurance co-ops, and some are privately insured. There is also a small number of uninsured people in Germany.

Grocer wrote:

I'm not arguing that's good or bad, I'm just saying that by the standards of the Michael K. Powells of the world, Germany is a socialist country with a socialist economy.